BEFORE THE 

           FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 

 

In the matter of:                   ) 

                                    )   Project No. 

WEST VALLEY A & B HYDRO PROJECT     )   P‑12053‑001 

                                    )  

___________________________________) 

           

      

                     Scoping Hearing 

                      June 15, 2005 

                  Likely Fire Department 

                   Likely, California   

 

           The above entitled matter came on for hearing,

pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. 

REPORTED BY:  DANIEL A. HUMPHREY, CSR 5480

BEFORE:     SUSAN O'BRIEN 

           Fisheries Biologist/Project Coordinator 

           Office of Energy Projects 

           Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

           888 First Street, NE 

           Washington, DC 20426 


APPEARANCES (CONTINUED): 

           Frank Winchell, FERC‑Indian Tribe Liaison 

           Alan Mitchnick, Senior Technical Expert, FERC  

           Alex Miller, Biologist, FERC 

           Phil Rhinehart, BLM 

           Jayne Biggerstaff, U.S. Forest Service 

           Peter Adams, Hydrologist, Modoc National Forest  

           Nicholas Josten, applicant 

           Patricia Cantrall, County Supervisor 

 

           and members of the public 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

June 15, 2005, Likely, California 

          MS. O'BRIEN:  I'd like to welcome you here today. 

My name is a Susan O'Brien.  I'm with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission in Washington today, A & B West Valley

Hydro Project.  Also Fisheries Biologist.  I want to thank

you all for coming.  This is a public process, and your

input is important.  And we are glad you can be here and

thank you for taking the time to participate. 

           First I need to do introductions, introduce the

other FERC staff.  We will be cooperating, working with BLM

and Forest Service, referred to in the documents usually as

FS.  We are going to rate the environmental assessment

together.  Scoping, we are here to identify the issues that

we need to address in evaluating this proposed project. 

           MR. WINCHELL:  Frank Winchell, I work with the

FERC in Office of Energy Projects.  Again that's part of

this office that does relicensing for hydroelectric

projects.  I'm an archeologist anthropologist, and I do the

cultural resource parts of the proposed project licensing ‑‑

exemption. 

           MR. ALEX MILLER:  Alex Miller.  I'm a summer

intern at the FERC in DC.  Currently I'm a student at

Virginia Tech majoring in Physical and Environmental

Policies and Planning.  So it's an opportunity to see the

real world application. 


           MR. MITCHNICK:  Alan Mitchnick, Senior Technical

Expert with the Commission.  I'll be handling the

terrestrial and endangered species issues. 

           MS. BIGGERSTAFF:  Jayne Biggerstaff.  I work for

the Forest Service in Modoc County. 

           WOMAN:  (unintelligible)  I work on Modoc

National Forest Reclamation. 

           MR. ADAMS:  Peter Adams with the Modoc National

Forest, hydrologist. 

           MR. RHINEHART:  Phil Rhinehart.  I'm with the

BLM, and I'll be working on the problem on the BLM side. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Thank you.  Just so you know what

we are doing here today, just go through the instructions. 

Like to go through the processing schedule.  Mr. Nicholas

Josten project applicant.  And we will turn it over to him

to give a description of the project.  Then we will list all

the issues that we have identified.  Then we will turn it

over for public comment from all of you, any discussion. 

           So as I mentioned, the purpose today is really we

are getting ready to rate your environmental assessment on

this project, and in order to analyze the impacts this

project could have and how to deal with that, and in order

to do that we need to make sure we have identified all the

issues.  We need to make sure we have all the information we

need to handle that.  So we issued our scoping document in


May.  If you didn't get one, there's extra copies as well as

some other handouts.  We are here today for the scoping. 

The scoping comments are due July 11th.  You can e file them

or mail them in, and I will provide you with directions on

that later. 

           It's likely that we will need additional

information, and we propose that we issue that in August. 

That's after we have seen all the issues that have come in,

reevaluate what the applicant has submitted in his

application, and his additional filings; looking at other

available information and sources, literature, studies

conducted by other agencies like the Fish and Wildlife

Service.  Once we look at all the information we have, if we

feel the applicant needs to gather more information, we will

write that information request, and plan to issue it in

August. 

           Then it's estimated that ‑‑ it's typical we give

90 days for additional information requests.  So if we feel

that's the appropriate amount of time, then his response

would be due in November. 

           At that point after we analyze everything, then

he would file, and we have all the information we need to go

ahead with our document, we would issue a notice saying we

are ready for environmental analysis, meaning we have enough

information to write our document.  And also that notice


also sets another comment period out ‑‑ 60‑day comment

period for comments on the project, and recommendations and

terms and conditions.  Some of the agencies, like Fish and

Wildlife agencies, meaning United States Fish and Wildlife

Service and California Department of Fish and Game since

this is an exemption, they file mandatory terms and

conditions.  Like one‑time shot.  So there's a 60‑day time

period that everybody can file comments and necessary terms

and conditions and recommendations.  So potentially those

would be due in January.  And then there's another 45‑day

reply comment period.  The applicant can file reply comments

as well as anybody else on the comments that were filed. 

           And if that all goes well, we should be able to

issue our environmental assessment in April and be ready for

a Commission decision whether or not to move forward with

this proposed project, and if so, what measures we would

require for that project to have.  And next spring and

summer should be ready for that Commission decision on this

project. 

           This is a exemption rather than a license with

the FERC.  Some of the requirements for an exemption is some

of the structures are already existing structures, and he's

just modifying, and turbines and powerhouse, so he qualifies

under the exemption, which is part of the regulations.  And

so he no longer has to file for ‑‑ licenses are usually


issued for a period of time, 30 to 50 years.  In 30 to 50

years he does not to have reapply for a license.  This is

it; get this exemption from licensing and with terms and

conditions that the license or the exemption order dictates,

and he would still be required, you know, for dam safety

inspections and such like that there would be the ability to

reopen that exemption if there are environmental issues that

require it. 

           I think that's all I wanted to mention on that.  

           Do you have any questions on the processing

schedule and about the exemption? 

           All right.  Turn it over to Nick.  Come up and do

your presentation. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  It's on here.  Who is in charge of

the computer?   

           My name is Nick Josten, and my job here is

assigned by Susan just to describe the proposed project, to

give you folks the clearest idea that I can of what will

happen, what will be built, and what it will look like, and

how it will operate.  So that's what I'm going to try to do.

           I think most of you know the country pretty well. 

At least this map is reproduced out in the other room all

over the place.  There's kind of a recap of the existing

facilities, irrigation facilities.  Right now include a

diversion structure located up Jess Valley Road at the head


of the canyon there.  They divert water into a ditch, store

the water in West Valley Reservoir during the winter, and

then during the summer they release that water down West

Valley Creek back into the Pit River, and they use it for

irrigation.  So the dam and the reservoir exists; the ditch

exists, the diversion exists right now.   

           And this project proposes to take advantage of

those facilities to generate hydroelectric power, and there

will be two locations where the power is generated.  Here,

the water in the ditch when it's dropped down to the

reservoir, there is a lot of elevation drop on the water at

that point.  There will be a power plant at that location. 

And then when the water is released from the reservoir and

brought back to the river there's about another 140 or 150

feet of elevation drop, so there will be a power plant in

this location. 

           So the way the water will flow through the

project, it will be diverted at the same existing diversion,

run down the ditch.  At this point currently water flows

down a gully and straight into the reservoir.  We propose to

construct a new canal to bring that water around up by the

dam, put it into a penstock through a powerhouse, then into

a reservoir.  Currently the water is released through a pipe

in the dam.  We will attach a penstock to the end of that

pipe so that the water released from the reservoir will be


pressurized in the penstock and come down just about to Jess

Valley Road, and at that point it will go through a second

powerhouse, then back to the river.   

           So the water flow will be the same as it is now. 

The differences will be that the diversion is ‑‑ depending

on the availability of water, will be year around.  And that

this section of the South Fork of the Pit River will have

reduced flows because the water can only be in one place. 

           That's an overview.  Then we will go through what

the facilities look like. 

           This is just a list of things.  Existing

diversion can be modified to handle the amount of water.  I

have applied for the maximum, 100 CFS.  Current water rate

is 38.  This wouldn't make a total of 38.  This 38 comes

first, then an additional 62.  But the existing diversion

can handle it with some modifications.  We will install a

fish screen on the canal so that all the water that's

diverted will go through a screen structure to keep fish out

‑‑ this is a screened canal.  This is a piece of a screen

mesh.  This is dictated by National Marine Fisheries

Service.  I'll pass this around.  It's a tight little

screen.   

           And so all of the water that is diverted will be

screened so fish won't get into the canal.  The existing

canal that we use goes about 2.2 miles.  There will be a new


section of canal about a half a mile.  The penstock that

takes the water from the canal and drops down to the

reservoir is about 400 feet.  It will be 48‑inch penstock,

about so big, above the ground.  The powerhouse will be on

the shore of the reservoir.  It will be a simple metal

structure about 20 by 50 feet approximate dimensions.  Maybe

ten to fifteen feet tall.  It will have two turbines and a

generator. 

           Then the reservoir of course and the dam exist,

but we will attach a 54‑inch penstock pipeline to the outlet

of the dam, and that penstock will run down to Jess Valley

Road and somewhere in there, and there's a lot of

flexibility in the placement of that, there will be a very

similar powerhouse with two turbines and the generator.   

           The transmission line to start at the upper

powerhouse, right about at the dam, cross West Valley Creek,

run down the road, and join the existing service, electric

service line that runs down Jess Valley Road.  It needs to

get to Likely.  It will either be built on the common poles

or it will be parallel to the existing line, but in the same

right‑of‑way. 

           We can look at each of those facilities.  This is

just a little aerial view.  This is Jess Valley Road.  Most

folks from around here know where this diversion is.  It

will be at the same place.  Looks something like this.  This


concrete structure is capable of handling 100 CFS, but the

pool size has to be increased to get that much water

through.  The check dam on the diversion structure will be

raised about eight inches, approximately, in order to

increase the size of the pool.  At high water you won't

hardly notice the difference.  At low water ‑‑ you are

probably familiar.  There's a small pool that curves behind

that check structure.  There's always fish in it.  That will

extend it a little bit further back, but not very much. 

It's just an eight‑inch increase to the elevation. 

           The fish screen, I have a slide of that.  The

fish screen will be located a little ways down the canal. 

We were ‑‑ Fish and Game looked this over and approved that. 

The main reason there's just not any room to build a screen

there until you get a little bit away from the construction

to the valley, so we will go down the canal a little ways

and build a fish screen.  This is an example of a smaller

screen where there is rotating drums that will be covered

with that mesh, or that pressed aluminum that I passed

around.  And that enables it to clean itself.  As it

rotates, stuff accumulates on it, it will dump it off into

the canal and clean itself.  So there's no way for the water

to pass into the canal without going through the mesh. 

           This is a picture of the existing canal.  In

places this canal is already big enough to handle 100 CFS. 


Other places it will have to be cleaned out and widened in

order to handle that capacity.  And so we will have to go

down the length of it and create that capacity for 100 CFS

needed.  That will be done by taking materials, when

necessary, from the uphill side of the canal.  We won't

touch the existing dike.  That's an old dike that's been

there a long time.  In general with canals, the older the

better.  They just get stronger.  So we will avoid any kind

of invasion on that dike. 

           The other thing is that there are ‑‑ the canals

are imperfect structures.  They can fail.  They have failed. 

This canal failed fairly recently, and everybody knows about

that.  That can happen with canals.  I cannot guarantee that

that won't happen, but the project has a very strong

incentive not to let that happen.  So what we will plan to

do from the start is to install a liner in any areas of the

canal that have been historically problems, as we go.  Those

who were on the tour yesterday, I talked about the material

that would be used for lining.   

           I brought a piece of it.  We can pass this around

and you can see it, but it's basically a carpet type

materials; goes into the canal, soil over the top of it, and

it's impervious.  So we will do that.  So there will be some

improvements to the canal. 

           Currently the canal runs a long ways.  It's


practically level.  When you're driving along the road,

you'll see it along the right.  Looks like it's flowing up

hill, but it's essentially flowing level.  When it comes to

the divide between the South Fork Pit River and West Valley

Creek, it dumps over the divide and wash down the gully into

the reservoir.  That's how the water is currently stored. 

Right at that divide we propose to install an overflow

structure that will move that water out of the existing

canal into a new canal that will continue to run around the

top of the hill and bring the water over toward the dam.  In

the event that the project went off line, couldn't take

water through the powerhouse, it will spill over at this

point right here and go down into the reservoir the same way

it currently does.  So if there's any kind of a storage

requirement, that can still be met.  It doesn't just stop

the whole thing up, but it will be designed to overflow at

that point where it currently flows in. 

           This is a low concrete structure.  There's some

fairly significant diversion that's occurred here, so there

will be some earth moved here to get that in.  But the

structure itself will be just a ground‑level structure. 

           This is the other end of that canal.  It's been

brought all the way around the top of the hill.  The canal

will run through a juniper forest.  It will be very

difficult to see unless you're right on top of it until it


comes out at this point right here above the dam.  At that

point we will build an intake structure with another local

concrete structure, and the water will enter a pressurized

penstock.  The penstock will run down the hill.  The very

upper part of the penstock is visible from limited portions

of the reservoir, maybe the first forty, fifty feet.  Then

it goes into trees, and when it come out at the bottom it's

visible again right near the reservoir. 

           And then that penstock will go into the

powerhouse, and the generators will be located in the

powerhouse approximately in this photograph somewhere right

in here.  This is the dam.  This is the existing gatehouse

that they use to release water from the reservoir.  So it

will be all very tight up against the dam.  That's going to

be the beginning of the transmission line. 

           It will probably take one pole to get it up on

the hill, then come across West Valley Creek and from that

point on it will run down the existing road. 

           This is just a little bit of a detail of how the

penstock will look.  It will not rest on the ground.  It

will rest on passive saddles.  Hold‑on saddles where

necessary.  It's possible in some places ‑‑ the problem out

here is it's very rocky, but if there's soil, that it can be

partially buried.  And also this is the way you could

provide wildlife with an easy path to get across it.   


           Originally as proposed this upper pipeline was

quite a bit longer; now it's quite short.  Maybe that won't

be a problem, but any of these varieties of installation are

possible and probably will be used.   

           Transmission line I talked about.  This is

looking upstream at the dam.  And that span of the West

Valley Creek will be right here, on to the road here, then

it will be on the road the rest of the way down. 

           Now we are starting to look at the lower project. 

This is the current facility for releasing water from the

dam.  We can see this out here yesterday.  A few years ago

you would actually see the gates down at the bottom, the

reservoir was so low.  But you open and close the gates from

that gatehouse that sits up on the side of the reservoir,

and that will be opened up fully.  And the release from the

reservoir will be performed at the powerhouse down at the

bottom.  So this structure won't go way, it will still be

there.  It will be retained in operating condition, but it

will be left open, and the actual regulation of water will

occur in the hydropower project.   

           This is where the pipe comes out of the dam at

this point we connect onto it with a new pipe.  There will

be a valve in that area so you can put some water in the

creek and some into the pipeline, or all the water in the

creek or all the water in the pipeline.  There will be a big


butterfly valve down there that permits you to move the

water each way.  The reason that is important is because the

irrigation district has a ‑‑ occasionally will release for

irrigation purposes more water than the hydro project can

handle, so you have to have a way to get the rest of that

water down.  So this will have the capacity to give you all

the water that it can currently deliver.  Bypasses

essentially that valve.  It will be located just right down

below the dam. 

           Okay.  At that point we have water in a penstock,

and we will slowly edge that penstock over on to the road. 

The road's dropping down.  The penstock holds more or less a

constant elevation.  At some point it will be at road level. 

Then we will put it on the road and keep it on the road for

the rest of the way down to the river.  And the construction

of this will be similar.  It will depend on the substrate

conditions, whether it be a combination of hold‑downs and

passive saddles and possibly partially buried segments. 

           The lower powerhouse then is going to be located

somewhere in the vicinity of the confluence of West Valley

Creek and the South Fork of the Pit.  There's a lot of

options available for how to do this and where to place

this.  And there was some discussion about this yesterday,

and it's conceivable that that powerhouse can be pushed up a

little ways into the existing vegetation where it will be


practically invisible from the road.  That's something we

will certainly look at.  That has to be weighed against the

drop that you get in the water pressure, so these last few

hundred feet is about two percent of the overall drop.  So

there's a trade‑off there that we will look at.  There's a

lot of flexibility in selection.  Probably not even in the

running is an old picture and more likely be over on the

other side of the road somewhere just above the confluence. 

Similar building.  Metal building somewhere in the order of

20 by 50 feet.  And inside it will be two turbines and a

generator.   

           The transmission line has come down the road,

then it will join that existing transmission line right of

way that's been there.  We can combine those poles.  That's

something that the rural electric is interested in.  There

will still be just one set of poles with the transmission

lines and the service lines.  They have suggested that they

were interested in that.  The lines can be turned over to

them after they are built so they will be able to provide

three‑phase power all the way up to the reservoir.  If not,

it will be a parallel line in the same right of way. 

           The water.  These graphs are on the walls, and if

people have questions about these, it's probably best to

stand and look at them, talk about them, because there's a

lot of information in them.  But I'll just go briefly over


the water information. 

           This is based on 1990 to 2002.  They have water

records in the South Fork of the Pit all the way back to

1920.  But in order to understand how water flows through

this system you also have to know how much water has been

diverted by the District and how much water has been

released by the District.  And I compiled that information

for 12 years.  So that's the data that we were looking at. 

But flows in the main river are available back to the

1920's. 

           WOMAN:  Did you say that we can ask you questions

now?  Or did you want to go with your presentation first? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Let's finish the presentation. 

           WOMAN:  Okay. 

           MR. JOSTEN:  There's so much information in

these.  I guess I'm not sure that there's any one main point

except that this is what it has looked like from 1990 to

2002 with this blue curve being the measurement as the USGS

station down the entire project.  The green curve is the

release from the dam, which there's no release during the

winter.  It increases during the summer and peaks in the

late summer.  Gray curve is the diversion by the Irrigation

District to store water in the reservoir.  Doesn't happen in

the summer.  Starts in November.  Captures storm events and

then it peaks in the spring when the runoff occurs.  So it's


pretty steady storage, then it shuts off somewhere around

May, and they don't divert in the summer. 

           Red is the flow in the bypass reach of the

project.  The part of the problem that will be affected by

the diversion.  That's the historic flow. 

           This is average, same years, assuming that the

project was installed and the diversion up to 100 CFS had

occurred, 100 percent efficiently.  You can see that the

water in the river downstream is obviously the same.  Beyond

the confluence of those streams there's no change.  Upstream

from there the amount of diversion is increased because

there's now diversion for power.  The amount of release from

the reservoir is increased because whatever doesn't need to

be stored will be immediately released for power generation

and the bypass reach is reduced.  There is still a spring

flood.  The flood is smaller; shorter period.  And peak of

the flood is lower.  But, for example, when we were out

there yesterday there would still be high water in the

river.  The power project would not take all of the water. 

But it will change that spring flood amount.  It will be

small.  That's where the power is coming from. 

           This one is on the wall.  This is each individual

year model, so you could see what would have happened each

day.  There's been some dry years and wet years in the last

12.  You can go and take a look at that and try to envision


what it would have been like in a dry year or wet year or

average year. 

           Operations.  In order to operate this, there's I

guess the first principle and first priority is that there's

number one thing that has to be adhered to is the

requirements for irrigation and the requirements for minimum

flows.  So the first priority in operating this project is

to make sure that water is stored and/or delivered for

irrigation and that minimum flow requirements are met.  And

you have to adjust the project as required when the level in

the river changes.  So each time the level in the river

changes, the amount of water that you want to push through

that diversion will change by itself, so you have to go and

readjust that on a regular basis to make sure that all of

the requirements are met.  And it turns out to be something

that's straightforward to do, but you need some gauging on

flows.   

           So as part of this project we will have staff

gauges installed just below the diversion in the South Fork

Pit so we can measure the bypass flow directly.  We will

have staff gauging in the canal just below the diversion so

we can see how much is being diverted directly, and then we

will have a gauge on the amount of water to give a

measurement.  We are lower of the lower power plant, so we

know how much water is going to come to the lower project. 


I don't have it on here, but there's an existing gauge in

West Valley Creek, so if there's water in West Valley Creek,

he can measure that.   

           So with all the numbers available by reading the

staff gauges that you saw yesterday, you can make the

adjustment.  As the river changes, the operator of the

project will do that.  The operator will also be ‑‑ there

will be an overflow alarm at this point so that if water was

to overflow, if it was to back up and overflow into West

Valley Reservoir, the operator would be notified immediately

so he can go up and make the adjustments.  So the operator

will be on this project on a daily basis.   

           We don't know who that operator will be, but

chances are it will be integrated with the Irrigation

District's operators currently.  That would make sense. 

           Proposed mitigation.  This is from the list that

Susan and FERC put together and is out there.  There's a

minimum flow requirement that was based on a study of

in‑stream water depth and flow in the bypass reach.  The

focus of that study was to provide passage for red band

rainbow trout.    

           A series of transects were set up and water was

measured and a report was generated and comments were

received from Fish and Game and the final result of that is

that 7.5 CFS minimum flow is going to be a requirement on


this project.  This would be during the parts of the year

when the project diverts for power only.  During the winter

wet Irrigation District is diverting for storage.  They have

a different minimum flow requirement.  And this project has

no effect on it. 

           The other thing that they asked for was a ‑‑ in

low water years they wanted a flushing flowdown:  the

requirement of 100 CFS for a 24‑hour period.  This year that

happened anyway.  Even with power project running at full

steam there was enormous flushing flows but wouldn't have

been important for this year, but some years it would be

important.  They have entered that as a condition. 

           The fish screen is a condition that Fish and Game

for retaining fish in the canal.  They wanted passage at the

diversion.  At lower water fish can pass over that, if it

becomes too extreme.  They wanted a series of rock rubble

weirs constructed so that fish could pass by that diversion

any time of year. 

           Talked about installing a canal liner at points

in the canal that have been historically unstable.  That's

one of the things I think the project will do to make the

canal a more reliable conveyance. 

           Reseed all bared soil areas with native plants. 

Anything that gets stripped of vegetation will be reseeded

with native plants.   


           Structures will be colored to blend with natural

background.  I'd be glad to give that choice to anybody who

feels they can make it.  I'm probably not the best person,

but we can choose those colors so that it blends in as best

it can be, and plant free vegetation in case there's still

some visibility that we want to eliminate.   

           All the power poles will be raptor proofed, which

means they won't be able to spread their wings and get one

wing on one and one wing on the other wire.  There are

standards for that common in the industry.   

           And we will need a noise standard.  We will

provide passage across penstocks as needed if we pick some

kind of a route that's for larger animals.  Small animals

will go right under it.  We can build passage across the

penstocks.  We will provide an escapement structure in the

canal.  In case an animal got caught in the canal, there

would be a way to get out easily before they come to any of

the penstocks. 

           Benefit of the project.  It's clean, renewable

power.  It's not without a price, but it is clean and

renewable power.  There's no pollution.  And it's there

every year.  The maximum capacity of the project is about

2400 kilowatts, 2.4 megawatts at maximum capacity.  That's

enough to power about 2000 average households, not including

heat.  It's equivalent to 280,000 gallons of Number 2


diesel, 100 million cubic feet of gas.  So your power is

coming from somewhere.  If it's not a clean and renewable

resource, it's likely one of those others.  Somebody else is

dealing with those impacts.  But hydropower is clean, it's

renewable, it's very efficient. 

           The project will also improve the reliability of

the Irrigation District canal.  There will be a base also

for the funding source for the maintenance, and I think

continuous improvement of that canal.  Will supply

three‑phase power four miles up county road.  Maybe that's

important to somebody right now.  Maybe it will be important

in the future, but it's an expense that will be handled.   

           There will be a demand for jobs and services and

primarily during construction, but during operation and

maintenance it will be another small part of the economy

here. 

           I would imagine there's going to be some taxes to

pay, so it's going to be a supplement to the county tax

base.   

           Schedule.  I don't know if that syncs with yours

or not.  Looks like it does.  If we are to obtain the

permits by July of next year, there's the possibility that

we could begin construction by the fall of next year.  Best

case.  Fastest case.  And that's me. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Thank you, Nick.   


           I just wanted to run through the issues.  Did

anyone write anything on those notes pads? 

           So we divided it by resource category.  These

issues are listed in the scoping documents, so I want to run

through them quick.   

           No?  Okay.  Nobody wrote anything, so we don't

have anything to add.   

           For geology and soils.  The issues that are

discussed in the environmental analysis document: potential

for over topping of canals or canal failures.  And the

effects of project construction and operation on erosion of

soil in project‑affected water.   

           For water quality and quantity.  The adequacy of

existing and proposed gages to monitor the hydrologic

characteristics and compliance with required minimum stream

flow releases. 

           The effects of construction of the new project

facilities and modification of existing facilities on the

water quality.  And the effects of project operations on

water temperature and the other water quality parameters in

the project‑affected waters. 

           The effects of the project canal maintenance on

water quality.   

           Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on water

quality caused by project operations.   


           Effects of year around water diversions from the

South Fork Pit River required for project operations on

water quantify in the bypassed reach.  

           Effects of project construction, associated

land‑disturbing activity.  Potential temporary turbidity

increase on the fishing resources in project‑affected

waters.   

           The effects of project operation on fisheries

resources in project‑affected water.   

           Effect of the year‑round water diversion from the

South Fork Pit River for project operations on fisheries.   

           For terrestrial resources.  You know, the land,

wild land and botanical.   

           The effects of the loss of up to 35 acres of

vegetation on the local wildlife populations resulting from

project construction.   

           The potential for the spread of noxious weeds and

exotic species from construction activities.   

           And effects of project construction and operation

on sensitive plant and animal species. 

           The effect of reduced flows in the South Fork of

the Pit River and West Valley Creek on the existing riparian

communities. 

           And potential for project transmission line to

pose collision and electrocution hazard to birds.   


           Effect on threatened endangered species.   

           So the effects of the project construction and

operation on the federally threatened bald eagle.   

           Recreation and lands use.  The adequacies of

existing public access and recreational facilities in the

project area to meet current and future recreational demand. 

 

           The effects of the proposed action and

alternatives on recreational opportunities, including

off‑highway vehicle use, fishing, boating, and camping

within the project area.   

           And the effects of the proposed project

construction, operation, and maintenance on land use within

the project area.   

           For scenic and esthetic resources.   

           Effects of the proposed project construction,

operation, and maintenance on esthetic resources within the

project area, including noise and visual impacts.   

           Effects of shoreline erosion resulting from the

proposed action on the esthetic resources within the project

area.   

           Cultural resources.   

           The effects of project construction and operation

on cultural resources that are listed or considered eligible

for inclusion in the National Register of historic places.  


           Developmental resources and socio‑economics.   

           The effect of proposed protection, mitigation,

and enhancement measures on the project economics. 

           So that's all the issues we have identified.  You

can turn in written comments to me personally today if you

have them ready.  If you want to file them electronically at

the FERC web site or mail them directly.  The address is on

the screen, and it's written down in the scoping documents

which there's copies on the counter, where I can explain

anything to you after the meeting if you have any questions

about how to file documents.  And they need to be submitted

by July 11th.  We will also take your comments, which is

what we will go into now and the main purpose of the

meeting. 

           We would like to hear your comments.  If you have

additional issues you've identified or some additional

information, that's what we are here for.  We don't want to

get into any sort of bad comments or differences of opinions

and views.  We are here, we would like to hear the

information that you have.  So like to keep it friendly and

so we just ‑‑ three people signed up officially to talk.   

           Bill, would you like to come up first to talk? 

           MR. BILL FLOURNOY:  I just had a few comments to

make.  Bill Flournoy, Likely.   

           I just believe that this project is a good use of


our natural resources.  It would be good for the Irrigation

District, it would be good for Modoc County.  It has the

potential to increase the tax base by about $2 million, or

near that.   

           That would be about $20,000 a year to the Modoc

County tax roll.  The Fish and Game has entered into an

agreement with the project that 7 CFS is enough to maintain

the fish flow, the flow of water needed for fish.  There's a

lot of good fishing in Modoc County in different creeks

around here that have less than 7 CFS during the summer.   

           There's a proposal to get the Fish and Game

involved to make the creek a little better.  The best

fishing place in that creek was in the old through the old

CC camp, and that's where they had some pools made by the CC

camp years ago, and a lot more could be done to that.  I

have been involved in a little bit of creek rehab out at the

creek, and the willows and stuff will provide the shade for

the fish.  Today was nothing there.  If they make some

structures they will slow that water down and make peace and

might have better fly fishing than we got now. 

           That's my comment.  Thank you 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Thank you.  Can you explain where

the CC camp is? 

           MR. BILL FLOURNOY:  Well, it's right down, right

where that creek gets straight.  It's about ‑‑ it's halfway


down. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Somewhere in the middle? 

           MR. BILL FLOURNOY:  People that live up there

know where the CC camp is.  They live right across from it. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  It's in the middle of the bypass

reach section? 

           MR. BILL FLOURNOY:  No, it's not the creek now. 

           MR. WINCHELL:  Can you explain in a little more

detail what you're talking about as far as the old CC camp? 

Frank Winchell for FERC. 

           MR. BILL FLOURNOY:  You guys have ‑‑ there's guys

that know more than I do, but it's right above the bridge

that goes to the old Blue Lake Road.  

           MS. O'BRIEN:  So it's near old Blue Lake Road? 

           MR. BILL FLOURNOY:  Upstream. 

           A VOICE:  Is this a CC camp?  What's the date? 

1930's? 

           MR. BILL FLOURNOY:  Yeah.  CCC camp.  They built

a swimming hole over there.  I think that dam is still

pretty much intact, isn't it? 

           MS. CANTRALL:  The old power place, a few years

ago. 

           MR. BILL FLOURNOY:  You say there's no longer a

pool of water? 

           A SPECTATOR:  There's a little pool, but hardly


any.   

           A VOICE:  A few years ago was still there.  I

haven't been up there for a couple of years.  I believe that

is federal land. 

           MR. BILL FLOURNOY:  I believe it's an Forest

Service land. 

           A VOICE:  Forest Service and private. 

           A SPECTATOR:  It would be back towards the east

about quarter of a mile. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Jayne, are you familiar and the CCC

camp? 

           MS. BIGGERSTAFF:  Yeah. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  Can we ask questions?  My name is

Linda Bruzzone.  I'm a land owner up on the river.   

           You mentioned $2 million a year revenue? 

           A SPECTATOR:  No.   

           MS. BRUZZONE:  How much is that revenue that will

be coming in?   

           A SPECTATOR:  I don't know.   

           MS. BRUZZONE:  You work for the South Fork

Irrigation District; is that correct? 

           A SPECTATOR:  I own land.   

           MS. BRUZZONE:  You're a principal in this

project?

           A SPECTATOR:  Not at this time.  


           MS. BRUZZONE:  I beg your pardon. 

           A SPECTATOR:  Not at this time.  

           MS. BRUZZONE:  Have there been conversations and

a written contract?  What is the agreement?  You are for the

canal, right?  What is the agreement with the project

director with the South Fork Irrigation District? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  There's no agreement. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  So they have not agreed to allow

you to use the diversion canal?  What is the agreement with

the South Fork Irrigation District? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  There's no written agreement. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  So you have no permission to use

the diversion canal; is that correct? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  I'm not sure I need permission, but

there's something that indicates that they will give

permission. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  Isn't it true you told the

landowners appearing at this meeting that the South Fork

Irrigation District was the principal in the project? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  I don't remember the words I used

but I probably told you the truth, which was that we are

looking at their involvement. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  Mr. Younger, is there agreement

between the South Fork Irrigation District and the

individuals and the project? 


           MS. O'BRIEN:  Could you state your name for the

record?   

           MR. YOUNGER:  Jay Younger, Alturas Ranches.   

           The gentleman that I work for is a large

landowner in the district.  He is quite interested in green

projects.  He has several buildings in the San Jose area

that he's converting to solar power.  And he became aware of

this project after Nick hooked into it.  And he was

interested in it, because in his vision it looked like a

really good long‑term source of green energy.  And in the

world he lives in there has been considerable pressure for

that.  And he was just interested in it.  So there have been

discussions between him and Nick.  There have been

discussions between the Irrigation District and Nick.  And

there is not a clear vision of how everything fits together

at this point.   

           All the parties are currently in agreement that

this is a good project, good for the community, good for the

District, good for energy.  And as everyone here is

concerned, also there is concern about the effects to the

affected area in the river.  And I think we feel that the

mitigation to the wildlife is a huge issue to us also.   

           Nothing has been nailed down.  Nothing has been

put in writing.  There has been some financing from Mr.

Swenson, who is the gentleman I work for, that is totally


unsecured on his part.  I have often wondered, you know, why

he does it without an agreement.  But he has done it.  And

he appears happy to do it. 

           And we are trying to figure a mechanism to make

in all work.  But it has to satisfy a lot of parties.  You

know, it has to be good for the local economy, it has to

provide jobs, it has to leave the Irrigation District intact

with no effect on our diversion rights, nor our ability to

use that water at the time we want to use that water.  If

there's ‑‑ and then it has to make money.  And it has to pay

for itself.  And of course we have issues with the affected

reach of the river that have to be mitigated also.   

           So we are working our way down this road.  And it

looks encouraging we could come out to a successful

conclusion.   

           This is a project that was envisioned when the

original dam was built.  This was a project that was again

looked extensively at in 1980.  The District wasn't in a

position to fund the project at that time.  And it couldn't

go forward.  And it's again a project that has come up. 

Possibly the financing and the people with the wherewithal

to put it together are currently in place.  And it may just

be a project whose time has come.   

           But we are working on that.  We hope to come to a

successful completion on all of that, and if possible that's


I think what the District and the most of the local people

and my owner would like to see happen. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  Mr. Younger, you work for Mr.

Swenson directly, can you tell me what control, what

percentage of the South Fork Irrigation District he has? 

           MR. YOUNGER:  There's several principles he's

involved with.  Alturas ‑‑ 

           MS. CANTRALL:  Point of order.  Can somebody

answer the question instead of Mrs. Bruzzone asking three or

four questions at once without waiting for the answer. 

Could we hear the answer to each question please? 

           MR. YOUNGER:  What I'm currently aware of he is

75 percent owner and Alturas Ranches, which is roughly 39

percent of West Valley.  So he would be 75 percent of 39

percent on that property. 

           Then he is 50 percent owner in the Estill

(phonetic) property.  Which is about 19 percent of the

project.  So he would be 50 percent of 19:  nine‑and‑a‑half

percent.   

           MS. BRUZZONE:  How about Green Valley Development

Company and his children, what percentage do they have in

Alturas Ranches according to farm subsidy?  They have

something like 86 percent. 

           MR. YOUNGER:  Assuming you're correct, which I

don't know whether you are or not, then they would be 86


percent of the 75 percent of that 38 percent. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  How much of the voting right does

Alturas Ranches and the other ranch have in the South Fork

Irrigation District? 

           MR. YOUNGER:  Under the current ‑‑ 

           THE MOTHER:  Did you tell us it was 60 percent ‑‑

           THE WITNESS:  Wait a minute.  I want to answer

this question, okay?   

           Under the current structure of the Irrigation

District, the entities that I represent have zero voting

rights in the West Valley Irrigation District.  Under

current rules you have to be a land owner in the West Valley

Irrigation District, and you have to be a resident in the

West Valley Irrigation District to be a board member.  And

you have to be a board member to have any voting rights in

the District.   

           Now, county wide, there is quite a lot of concern

because since these irrigation districts were set up in the

'30's when all of the people that owned land almost always

lived on the property that they owned, and were represented

because they owned and they lived there, now, people live in

many different areas within the county but not in the

district.  And there's tons of confusion there.  So there is

consideration at the county level to change to try to make

some of those ‑‑ to update some of those rules. 


           We have ‑‑ Alturas Ranches have a very good

rapport with the board because they are aware that we are 38

percent of the district.  And they seldom take action

without considering us strongly.  But as far as legal voting

rights, the answer is zero.  We have input to the board as a

water user. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  Between the two ranches, is it

true that you told us it was approximately 60 percent of the

West Valley Irrigation District? 

           MR. YOUNGER:  The two properties, through

multiple owners, would control I believe 38 percent of West

Valley and 19 percent.  And please don't hold me to those

two numbers.  But they are roughly correct.   

           MS. BRUZZONE:  Mr. McGarva, there was an

environmental meeting in Alturas, and you had mentioned

during that environmental meetings that there was an

agreement with South Fork Irrigation District where you were

going to get $20,000 a year that was reported in the Modoc

Record.  Now, can you tell me where that figure that you

came up with for $20,000 a year during the environmental

hearing came up from and how you came to that if there's no

agreement?   

           MR. McGARVA:  Ken McGarva.  I'm chairman of the

Board of Directors of South Fork Irrigation District. 

           At that time when we were working with Nick, we


had an agreement or part of the proposal that was had was

that the District would be responsible for the operation of

the power plant and the release of water.  And that was

where the figure $20,000 came up.  I think it was in the

studies of the operation and management of it. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  So, Mr. Josten was going to pay

you $20,000 to do the operation of the plant? 

           MR. McGARVA:  To the District. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  That was $20,000 a year.  So that

was an agreement.  And the agreement has since changed?   

           MR. McGARVA:  Yeah, after that ‑‑ at the time we

were working on that project, why, the District decided that

we couldn't go along with the project.  And our users voted

it down, to be a part of it. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  It was voted not to be a part of

this project? 

           MR. McGARVA:  Right. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  What was the reason for that? 

           MR. McGARVA:  Mainly was money. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  Was he asking for money for the

project from you? 

           MR. McGARVA:  Oh, yes.  Right.  Jay just

mentioned that the part ‑‑ the $20,000 was our interest in

the project, was interest on it.  Nick Josten had 90 percent

of the project. 


           MS. BRUZZONE:  So you are part of the project or

you were part of the project but now Mr. Josten is, and we

don't know who else is involved because we don't have any

partners in it?  

           MR. McGARVA:  No, I don't ‑‑ 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Can I interrupt at this point.  As

FERC sees it, Nick Josten is the only one on the record as

applicant. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  Right, my argument is that we

believe this is violation of state law.  We believe that the

South Fork Irrigation District is a public entity, and

subject to the Brown Act.  And there has been no public

notice by the South Fork Irrigation District, no public

notice to the individuals that will be adversely effect by

the land.  And we do believe that the South Fork Irrigation

District is involved; that the South Fork Irrigation

District needs to come forward and let us know exactly how

they are involved, especially in light of FERC project P

12575.  That FERC project also shows, if you look at this

map here, it shows another project right at the end of here

by the South Fork Irrigation District which they filed, and

down here.  And it shows high wire transmission lines coming

down the West Valley Creek, and those high wire transmission

lines coming down there.  The same things that are addressed

in this project.  We asked the South Fork Irrigation


District for information on this, and they are a public

entity, and we have not gotten any information on this.  And

it is our concern, and that's why we feel that these are

possibly two projects combined in one, and we believe that

there are laws perhaps that apply to this. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  First I just want to respond.  We

will make sure we get to everybody. 

           If they're in violation of a county law ‑‑ 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  State law. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  It needs to be taken up with the

State.  FERC isn't going to get involved in that. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  Okay. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  I wanted to backtrack.  I had a

couple of questions.  Jay Younger? 

           MR. YOUNGER:  Yeah. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  When you were referring to

percentage of the project, I wanted to clarify you were

discussing percentages of the Irrigation District, right? 

           MR. YOUNGER:  That's correct. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Okay, because when we go back and

read the transcript, we will see percentages of the project. 

I want to make sure we understood that's the Irrigation

District. 

           MR. YOUNGER:  And that is based on landownership

within the District which is constant for everybody in the


District.  Each landowner winds up with a percentage of the

water.  So it's backed out of the landownership in the

District. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Then you discussed two of the

owners that are landownerships that are high percentages. 

You referred to two properties, one 60 percent and one was

19 percent. 

           THE WITNESS:  38 percent is Alturas Ranches.  And

the 19, if I have that number correct, within a few percent,

is the Estill property that's on the rest side of the

valley.  Was the Christensen property before that. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Just so we are clear, and I believe

Miss Leslie Murray had a comment about that issue, so can

you keep you comment to just that issue?   

           MS. MURRAY:  No, I had a question.  Several

people referred to the West Valley Irrigation District.  I

wasn't sure if someone misspoke or if there are two

different Districts, and maybe I wasn't aware. 

           MR. YOUNGER:  No, that's a very good question. 

It is South Fork Irrigation District, and that's my fault. 

           MS. MURRAY:  You just misspoke? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  So any reference in the transcript

to West Valley ‑‑ 

           MR. YOUNGER:  Is South Fork. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Is South Fork. 


           And before we go on with the current issue,

there's a couple ‑‑ I wanted to backtrack.  And I had one

clarification for Mr. Flournoy.  And I believe Mrs. Bruzzone

was asking this, and I wasn't sure on this.  I just wanted

to know the source or how you calculated the numbers where

you said the increase in the tax base and the approximate

amount of taxes that would go to the county. 

           MR. BILL FLOURNOY:  I think it's ‑‑ Modoc County

collects one percent of your assessed valuation.  And this

project might reach $2 million, and that would be $20,000

would be one percent, I think, isn't it? 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Where did you get that $2‑million

figure from? 

           MR. BILL FLOURNOY:  That's just what in general

discussion what I've heard the project might cost. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Okay.  Or might be valued at? 

           MR. BILL FLOURNOY:  I'm not stating a fact

though.

           MS. CANTRALL:  May I speak to that?  I'm a County

Supervisor, and the discussion has come before the board. 

My name is Patricia Cantrall.  I represent this District,

District 3, for the County. 

           The approximate valuation given by the county

assessor, Mrs. Josephine Johnson, was 1.7 million to 2.4

million, depending upon the cost of materials and the cost


of the work done.  This is all under permit in this county. 

And when the final comes in, that is what the assessed

valuation rests upon.  And we would be collecting for the

tax rolls, the secured tax roll, the one percent.  So it

could be $20,000.  It could be greater.  Anyway, she does

keep some figures on file, and we can only wait until we see

what the project is going to amount to and the cost thereof

before a final determination can be made.   

           As to the Brown Act, that is a state law.  It is

true you must post meetings of a public entity.  Before the

Bruzzones moved here there were two meetings.  I believe we

have walked the river three times on just this ‑‑ I take

that back ‑‑ twice on this project.  We had some other

dealings with Rodney Flournoy.  Those meetings were posted

at the fire hall.  They were posted at the post office and

they were reported in the Modoc County Record.  And that was

before the Bruzzones moved here.  So they were in compliance

with the Brown Act.  And today's meeting also complied. 

They have posted all over and noticed in the Modoc County

Record, the paper of general circulation in this county. 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  I would like to make a comment. 

My specific reference to the Brown Act was South Fork

Irrigation District and their participation in project, not

the notice of this project by Mr. Josten.  It has

specifically to do with the South Fork Irrigation District. 


Their meetings, their votes, and their hearings of actions

that would be adverse to the public and that the public

needs to know. 

           The second issue that I'd like to address ‑‑ 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Before we go further, I believe

there was a couple other comments about the state issue. 

Although I want to comment that FERC can't do anything about

that.  It needs to be ‑‑ it won't help as far as this issue.

           MR. WEISER:  I have some comments to make.  They

are a little bit more broad than things that we are getting

into right now.  So I'd like before you give the floor back

to Linda, but I would appreciate an opportunity to comment

later how this project affects us. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Okay.  I have you on the list, and

you submitted your name.   

           Gentleman in the front had raised his hand when

the issue was first brought up. 

           MR. FARNAM:  Warren Farnam.  I just had a

comment.  I just felt we are drifting from the purpose of

this meeting. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Okay.  Thank you.   

           MR. FARNAM:  And we need to talk about

environmental scope and scopes of the different issues, and

I felt like an inquisition of the Water District. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Ms. Bruzzone, did you have any more


questions? 

           MS. BRUZZONE:  No, I have comments. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  You're next on the list if you want

to move into you comments about this project.   

           MR. WEISER:  The first map.  Dag Weiser.   

           I'm a property owner on the South Fork Pit River

in the proposed dewatered section.  This is my wife Leslie

Murray. 

           We are not very eloquent.  These are my notes

here.  If everybody will be patient with me, I'll try to go

through some of the things I wrote down this morning.   

           Yesterday we went on a walk with a lot of folks,

including John Flournoy and Pat Cantrall, and I was reminded

of the long history of this area with various parties, and I

wanted to go on the record, permanent record, as saying that

my family has a very long history here.  I was introduced to

this area by Aaron Forest when I was six.  My dad was an Air

Force guy, and his son was in the Air Force.  We helped out

his family one time.  He introduced us to this area, which I

was just six years old, and I'm 50 now.  So it's been quite

a while.   

           18 years ago the piece of property here came up

for sale.  And it's kind are strange, but this is kind of

where we always used to camp all the years that my family

came here.  One day a for‑sale sign popped up on that it,


and completely blew our minds.  We thought the whole time it

was national forest.  We had a long talk.  We pooled our

resources and we bought it.   

           I also understand that there's a really great

work ethic up here.  The McGarvas and the Flournoys.  I'd

like to state for the record that our work ethic is just as

strong.  We have pooled our family resources in order to buy

this piece of property.  And it's our major investment. 

It's where we are going to retire.  And it means a lot to

us.  And so it's pretty much my whole life is involved in

these acres right here.  

           How much of the river goes through it? 

           MS. MURRAY:  Three quarters a mile. 

           MR. WEISER:  Three quarters of a mile of

dewatered section runs right through this piece of property. 

When I first walked through the door, the first thing I saw

on the blue piece of paper is the non‑consumptive wordage. 

Personally if I had my way, that kind of thing would be

completely stricken from the record because if there is

nothing non‑consumptive about dewatered area by almost 50 to

80 percent, I can't imagine what's more consumptive than

that.  Obviously that's a big issue for us. 

           Obviously our biggest concern is our property

value, and one of the reasons we bought the property was to

maintain it as a fishery and for anybody to fly fish on, and


to maintain it in as pristine location as possible.  Haven't

built on it, but our intent is to keep it clean and the way

that it is.  And we are very concerned about the potential

for the devastation to the three‑mile stretch of dewatered

thing as a fishery.   

           It seems like a simple question to me.  But it

doesn't seem to have any simple answer.  We want people to

tell me what I noticed from FERC's list of things, what's

going to happen to this three‑mile stretch of river. 

Something is going to happen to it when a hundred CFS is

taken out of it year around.   

           There's no if's, and's, or but's.  It's going to

be hit and I want to know how it's going to be hit.  I want

to know what's going to be affected.  Because things are

going to be affected.  It doesn't take a brain surgeon to

figure that out.  So far none of those questions have been

answered to my satisfaction.  I hope FERC will see that

through. 

           We talked to a couple of fishermen over the last

couple of days.  To a person, they all thought the idea was

bad from our perspective as a hit to the fishery.   

           I stand here today trying to talk for hundreds of

people that use this area recreationally aren't probably

even aware of what's going on right now. 

           We were on the walk yesterday, and Edie Asrow


(phonetic), very intelligent person. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  District Ranger. 

           MR. WEISER:  Right.  Leslie and I both have gone

on the FERC record with tons and tons of comments on this

thing.  She brought up a couple of brand new ones that I

will comment on today.   

           And one of them was the ‑‑ oh, yeah, the Forest

Service and all the proponents in charge of the national

forest.  She was very proud of the fact as she pointed up

and down the river of the work that they have done in

conjunction with the ranchers and the cattle folks to

improve huge parts of this potentially three‑mile diverted

section.  And she says compared to fifty years ago it's like

night and day according to her.  I'd like to know what's

going to happen to that 50 years of work when 100 CFS is

taken out of the river.  Is it like back to ground zero? 

           Another point she brought up is, and we were up

on the diversion canal yesterday.  And Nick was talking

about beefing up historically troubled spots on the canal. 

I'd like to point out that the historical trouble spots on

the canal was from the canal that was build for a 38 CFS

partial diversion of water.  I don't know if anybody can say

what the historical problems are going to be when you're

putting a hundred CFS down it year around.  The problems

could compound in any number of directions.  It wasn't built


for a hundred CFS.  The problem that it faces now are

problems it has with the 38, not with the hundred year

round.  So that's a very big issue to us in terms of safety. 

 

           The river took a ‑‑ depending on who you talked

to, you get a completely different opinion from Jay Younger

than from me on the effect of the current breach.  I

maintain that those effects should be studied, and I'm

willing to meet anybody half way, but a lot of the time it's

business as usual in that regard. 

           And I've got photos to show the extreme siltage

that occurred to that point of pools of water that I've

fished in for forty years were filled to the top with silt

that has since washed down with the big spring runoff we all

had here.  But that had an effect.  It wasn't nothing. 

Something happened there, and that wants that to be

addressed in an environmental way. 

           And I want potential for a hundred CFS, that's

almost three times that amount of water, to be addressed

also.  That could be potentially life threatening.  Who

knows what could happen there.  I'm concerned that those

issues are addressed also.   

           Another issue I just thought of this morning is

that until a couple years ago I thought that the ‑‑ they

quit stocking the Pit River for the summertime anglers.  I


liked to come up here and fish a little earlier and fish for

the trout that kind of made it through the last season

because they are fun to fish for.   

           I understand there's a big influx in tourist

dollars and anglers coming through here fishing for those

fun‑to‑fish‑for stocked trout.  I'd really like to know what

Fish and Game, who conspicuously have been absent from the

meetings and the walk yesterday, and I'm not sure if there's

any Fish and Game representative here, and tell me how they

are going to deal with this river as a fishery, a long time

fishery, with the water levels to the proposed levels that

the diversion suggests in this ‑‑ for this project. 

           From my perspective it might not be viable to

maintain this fishery if the water levels are that low year

round. 

           Once again it's just a question of ‑‑ long line

of questions that I keep asking.  I have to be brutally

honest and say that my dealings with Fish and Game, the

South Fork Pit River flies under the radar a lot.  It's a

very small section of stream.  The people at Fish and Game

will tell you that resources are stretched to the maximum. 

And they're all over the place.  So I'm really having a hard

time getting very simple, what to my mind, very simple

questions answered to my ‑‑ to where I can understand it. 

           I've seen, I don't know where the Fish and Game


currently stocks the summertime trout.  Growing up they used

to pull the stock trout trucks right into the big pool that

is the current diversion.  I remember them ‑‑ right above

the diversion there.  I remember hundreds of fish pouring

out of these things.  Kids, I would go rushing over there

and fish for them right away. 

           Mr. McGarva yesterday said as we were commenting

on the current diversion, he said that at times in the year

the current diversion is inadequate for fish migration.  And

I thought about that, and I thought why is this whole aspect

of fish migration and healthy fish habitat, and pools and

the fish screens, having to piggyback onto the project, and

I'd like to ask Fish and Game that.  If we are here, but

they are not.  Why isn't that area being maintained to this

day as a dangerous place for fish?  Why do we have to have a

big power plant in order to get a fish screen.  That doesn't

make any sense to me.   

           I'd be happy to work with anybody free of charge,

free labor to put up a fish screen at any time.  I'm sure

there's lots of people in organizations all over the place

that would be happy to get involved in any kind of fish

screen, healthy area in the existing spot.  Until Mr.

McGarva said that yesterday, I had no idea that area was

inadequate in that regard. 

           I'll close by saying ‑‑ I won't close quite yet. 


I'll say that I understand the proponents' tax base figures. 

I don't understand the figures, but I understand what we are

trying to say that the project will bring money into the

area.  I want somebody to say what they think is going to be

lost by the project.  Something is going to be lost, or

something may be lost.  I want to talk about the if's, and's

and but's of the loss of revenue from a reduced fishery, of

the loss of my personal private property values.  I paid

plenty of taxes here myself.  I'm happy to hear all kind of

comments about what things will do; I want to hear about

what things might also do in the negative also.   

           I was talking with Nick yesterday, and he's

trying to find some common ground where everybody can be

happy.  It's difficult for me because a lot of the times I

feel that my concerns for my property and the fish habitat

and trout fishing are so diametrically opposed to the SFID's

approach to the river.  I try to see it from their

perspective.  I try to see it as a thing to use.  From my

perspective it's already being used a lot currently by the

SFID for their partial diversion, and for a big part of the

year by everybody else for recreation, for fishing, and

hopefully for me to live on.   

           I think that's about it for me. 

           MS. MURRAY:  I'm Leslie Murray, and I'm Dag's

wife.  And I'll try to not repeat what he's saying, but we


do have some similar interests obviously. 

           I think very strongly about this obviously.  I'm

getting choked up. 

           MR. WEISER:  Take your time. 

           MS. MURRAY:  We don't live here right now

permanently, but we plan to in the future and we have been

paying property taxes in this county for fifteen years on

this piece of property and not really enjoying many of the

services those property taxes pay for.  Certainly if we

build a home, the value of that home as you just ‑‑ as we

talked about, the power plant, and the value of anyone's

home will also increase the taxes.  So if we don't build a

home, that's going to ‑‑ what I'm trying to say is that any

value of activities that we might do or other landowners

might do, that we wouldn't do if we didn't care to live next

to a drained river.  That would need to be subtracted from

the figures that you were stating, the one percent of the

approximately $2 million. 

           Yesterday when we went on the site visit we heard

a lot about people who live here, and their Modoc

grandparents, and I just wanted to point out that obviously

we have grandparents too.  In fact Dag and I are both third

generation native Californians.  We do care a lot about this

area, and do feel like we belong here and that we know our

way around at least as well as ‑‑ excuse me ‑‑ most of the


other people we were on the site visit with. 

           And we don't live in a big city now, and we don't

want to.  We live in a small town right now on the coast of

California south of San Francisco.  Our family lives by

there.  And I do want to say that we don't own our house

right now.  That this is what we own, and what we plan to do

with our future. 

           MR. WEISER:  We plan on maintaining this property

for everybody.  I'm not going to put fences up to ‑‑ I'm

going to try to keep the cattle off the property to keep the

streamside as pristine as possible for fishermen.  My intent

is to maintain it as a fishery because a huge part of the

dewatered section is some of the best fishing I've done. 

South Fork is an amazingly beautiful and cool river.  You

can go down a hundred yards in the river, you have a whole

different system going on there.  Right in our own backyard

on our property are two completely different ecosystems, and

each one of those is going to be affected in some way.  And

that's what we want.  We want answers to how that's going to

be affected.   

           There's a shallow, very shallow stretch of

stream, right below ours that's on the Bruzzone's property

that I believe would virtually cease to exist with a

potential 100 CFS year round.  I understand that all those

figures fluctuate, but I'm talking about a year round


diversion of 50 to 80 percent of that water.   

           I've seen things happen on that stretch of stream

of the shallow part that I believe feeds the rest of

downstream.  When it gets that low, vegetation, hatches,

there's lot of months, there's hatches that happen on that

stretch of river that I've never seen anywhere else.   

           Couple years ago I saw a dragonfly hatch.  Had

hundreds and thousands of multi‑colored dragon flies with

huge wing spans flowing all over the top of the water.  I've

never seen anything like it.  I believe that was a real

amazing thing.  I want to know what's going to happen to all

that when this much water is taken out of the river. 

           MS. MURRAY:  Excuse me.  I'm sorry.  I really

feel strongly about this.  I had a couple of other points to

make that were notes that I made after we took the site

visit yesterday which was very interesting.  Couple things

that came up in my mind.   

           One thing was, I'm sorry, about the construction

impact.  And the application starts out by saying that it's

using existing structures, and you kind of just breeze past

that.  In fact the diversion structure is going to be

enlarged and changed so that the original concrete block is

there, so maybe technically that's using an existing

structure, but that seems like quite a lot of construction

to me, and new things.   


           The roads are going to be improved.  The canal is

improved.  Half a mile of new excavation.  So I just wanted

to point out my view on that, the term "existing structure"

is a little bit misleading. 

           I also agree with Dag.  It's misleading to call

this a non‑consumptive use of three miles of stream drained

of water ‑‑ I heard up to 93 percent all year around. 

That's consuming of water.  I realize this is an

non‑consumptive use.  Generally when you're speaking about

different types of power, if you burn coal and you burn

something, but still to use that term in a way that implies

there's no impact I think is misleading.  The riparian area

permanently changed.   

           Out of the three‑mile stretch that's proposed to

be drained, virtually drained, one and three quarter miles

is private property river front.  The river goes through our

property at an angle.  So that's actually more of the

diversion, slightly more is on private property.  The rest

is national forest. 

           The water figures of ‑‑ I can't remember the

exact years, but through the '90's.  1990 to 2000, I

believe.  I think that's also misleading.  Someone who was

on the walk yesterday, and I'm afraid I forgot his name, but

he works for Fish and Wildlife Service from the Klamath

Falls office.


           MS. O'BRIEN:  Rick Harney (phonetic). 

           MS. MURRAY:  Rick told me that mid '94, '95 was a

record rainfall period for California.  So I think that

should be considered when you're considering your ‑‑ the

whole thing that the figures that Nick has given you might

skew slightly to the higher water.  And maybe go in a

direction that's not accurate. 

           Also that the gauge below West Valley Reservoir,

including the reservoir outflow, obviously you could do the

math and figure out all the water a lot of people are

looking at, just those figures, all the figures are not all

available and all the gages aren't available, and some of

the gages I've been told are not functioning up above the

diversion.  There also are various springs, and there's a

spring on our property and seasonal creeks that add water. 

           MR. WEISER:  That's a really big issue for us.  A

lot of figures we seem to be getting from the project as far

as potential water from the diversion site don't include the

seasonal stuff, the springs, and a lot of it are taken from

a gauge station below where the diversion comes back in. 

One of the few gage stations there.  We are real concerned

about the inflow measurements at the diversion site being

taken into consideration in terms of how much water is ‑‑

impacts of how much water is being taken out. 

           MS. MURRAY:  I was also concerned, obviously this


can probably be checked, but just how all the gages are

checked, and no one knew for sure.  I assume there would be

records with the Irrigation District. 

           At this point in the project a lot of the details

seem vague, and I would hope that the FERC process that we

are going through right now would address those.  But that

concerns me that these are vague.  The structures could go

here, could go there.  Now as we get to speak, yet all these

decisions haven't been made yet.  What are we speaking

about?  The true details? 

           There has been some talk of mitigation of some

discussions, some discussion of what ‑‑ there is activities

offered in situations like this as mitigation.  This is some

stuff that came up yesterday in our site visit.  We spoke

before and met with Nick about a month or so ago, and talked

with someone that he brought to the meeting about

restoration.  And it turns out ‑‑ well, we can build our own

fences at our own expense anyway, but we can also seek our

own grant as landowners, so we don't need this project to

fix things.  Just like Dag was talking about the fish

ladders and different things.   

           And there was also some talk about trading land,

and I just thought that that sounded like, you know, taking

this land away that is so special to us is like if someone

offered to take your husband and get you a new one that fit


all the same description but wasn't the same person. 

           Just to add to the issue of the upgrading, I

think a lot of these upgrades that are being talked about

really seem like a smoke screen.  I know there's a lot of

the government funding, government grants have been used on

other parts of this river to improve the stream side and

different things.  Using government grants or applicant

funding to fix up the 1935 canal, to upgrade the diversion

structure, to fix bad roads in the back country up by ‑‑ on

the way to West Valley Reservoir where the construction is

going to be, just using ‑‑ it seems like a culture (?) to

use those properties.   

           You already talked about the bald eagles.  I know

they are planning to make some effort to keep fish out of

the turbines, but apparently that's not 100 percent, even

though the system appears to limit; that it's not perfect,

and didn't really like hearing that. 

           And then the last thing I have to add is on

another topic, that's environmental, but no one has brought

that up yet.  And I don't know if there's going to be lights

around these structures, but I wanted to say as ‑‑ that I'm

an amateur astronomer, and I know that this area is one of

the darkest sky locations in the entire country.   

           MR. WEISER:  It's rated by astronomy

organizations all over the world as one of the top rated


dark sky locations in the world.   

           MS. MURRAY:  So having lights on at night would

really ruin that.  They refer to that as light pollution. 

And you can look these up.  I could show you maps for

organizations that discuss these issues; that light shining

up in the sky even miles away can affect the whole thing. 

So it's really, really nice to have sky that dark. 

           MR. WEISER:  The dark sky is a vast untapped

resource in this area.  You know.  I'm planning on making a

astronomy a huge issue for myself. 

           MS. MURRAY:  And would be also something that

tourists also could come.  I can vouch for this.  I worked

for a company that sells telescopes for 11 years, and I'm

well aware of the field trips that people make to remote

locations in groups.  And it's quite a popular hobby, and

this area is an area that has been spoken of by people that

I've known.  So that's all.  Thanks for giving ‑‑ 

           MR. WEISER:  Just like to close by saying thanks

for being so patient as we went through all this.   

           I also want to say I have a lot of respect for

some of the long‑time people here.  The Cantralls and the

Flournoys and their opinions and what's going on.  What

everybody is trying to do.  And I just hope that our

opinions and our concerns are given a certain amount of

respect and really looked at seriously.  I understand the


whole issue of dollars come into the county, and I'm trying

to pay attention to everything that everybody is saying, but

I want to pay attention to the stuff that ‑‑ the adverse

effects as well as the potential positive effects.   

           MS. MURRAY:  I think what we have to add is it is

good for the county as anything.  I know all you guys are

thinking about what's good for the county.  I just don't

want our point of view to be overlooked.  Thank you. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Thank you for your comments.   

           Pat, would you like to make your comments? 

           MS. CANTRALL:  Certainly.  Patricia Cantrall,

C‑a‑n‑t‑r‑a‑l‑l.  We are not the traitors. 

           I will start with the bottom comment.  You are

certainly true that this is one of the darker areas.  We

have astrologists and astronomers from the University of

Nevada at Reno who come up to Turlock and the Great Black

Rock Desert, which as your National Geographic says is one

of the 44 great deserts of the world.   

           These gentleman come up and put on light shows,

meaning the star light, for the children at various

communities and Surprise Valley, and schools at Alturas

Elementary.  So we do know where that is, and I hold that

dearly because I don't like to go to Susanville and see the

lights of the prison for miles and miles and miles. 

           But anyway, the County of Modoc has been working


on this project.  I only mention the County Assessor and the

tax base it might bring in.  We have been planning,

scheduling.  They have some stuff being done by David Alford

(phonetic), the assistant planner, along with our county

geologist Dr. James E. Slosson (phonetic), who is the state

geologist for approximately seven years for the State of

California and did his major thesis when he was a young man

on the geology and hydrology of the County of Modoc.   

           I would need to know the slope, the proposed

slope since that question was asked, and can deer and other

animals get out of there.  Mr. Josten, can you tell me what

the proposed slope of the banks would be? 

           MR. JOSTEN:  Of the canal banks?  One to one and

two to one.  Like they are now. 

           MS. CANTRALL:  About like they are now.  And 2 to

1 slope any animal can get out of.  That I do know.  We went

through this with 4H and Dr. Slosson would so state.   

           Another item as to the posting, we are going to

go back to state law again.  I had to dig out my copy of the

Brown Act.  But I would state for the record that the South

Fork Irrigation District again holds its hearings at the

Likely Cafe on Thursdays.  I am the waitress usually working

on Thursdays, and their meetings are posted on the little

side windows alongside the door.  Usually a week in advance. 

State law requires 78 hours.  So that's five times 24, and


they are posted.  And there are several of us who work in

this community who can verify that.  They do not need to be

posted at the post office.  That's nice if you want to do

it.  But the posting in the building to be held is all that

is required by state law.  So they are posted in a timely

manner. 

           And I would just like to add that it would be

good in my opinion and not as an old time resident because I

am not an old time resident.  I married my late husband in

1956.  I did not grow up in this community, but I do love

this community dearly.  And, you know, it is my job to

support everybody in any way I can, or if there's a vote

taken, then I must support the majority of the people who

live here. 

           I think this would be a good thing in that we are

all paying quite expensive electric bills because of the

State of California which we had to buy power from out of

this state.  Coal in some ways might be a good power source. 

There are more things, such as clean coal, than their used

to be.   

           But water energy, and I can verify this ‑‑ I also

used to spend summers in Bruney.  Beginning ‑‑ PG&E owns

Pits 1 through 7.  They had generated much electricity over

the years.  Finally got down to where they didn't really

keep several of these going.  So they wished to relicense


those again.  Again I would say to you this is green energy. 

This isn't putting smoke into the air, pollution into the

air.   

           On the other hand, I realize that, no, you who

live along the river who have just bought those properties,

you don't want to see the flow diminished, and I can assure

you that is why we continue to walk the river for the simple

reason that we need to see what's going on.  Nobody is

trying to cut you out of your habitat.  Nobody is trying to

cut the deer out of their habitat.  And I would argue the

point made by one of my neighbors, Mrs. Sheridan, who was

worried about the deer not perhaps being there.  Cattle and

deer of an evening will walk from one to three miles for

water.  They eat all day.  You can see them along the fences

at night up here on the hills coming down to get water. 

That's how predators get it, is when they come into the

water hole. 

           I can only state to you as a county supervisor

that I would hope to work with the Indian peoples with whom

I have gone to school, most of the members of the local

tribe the landowners here and everyone else, but I will

state outright that in my opinion this is a good project if

we can find some way to do it, and I would hope that some of

the fostering of hate and discontent that has taken place in

this county like in places like the Brass Rail act as if in


league with or bought by, that this kind of stuff will stop. 

And that is also a matter of public record all those that

were there that evening.   

           So we hope that will discontinue and everybody

can work together to make this project feasible if at all

possible, and for the greater good of the people who live on

the river, for the animals, for the environment, and for all

the peoples of Modoc County.  Thank you. 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Thank you.  David Thorne. 

           MR. WEISER:  Can I comment on one thing she said?

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Sure. 

           MR. WEISER:  Your concerns with buying the

out‑of‑state electricity at one time seem valid, but we have

all read the transcripts of the various ‑‑ of the elevated

energy crisis that we all went through, the Enron people

talking on the phone about how they was going to screw

people.  That was a screw of the Californians.   

           I believe that the energy cries that this project

is trying to piggyback on was a false crisis.  And it's not

happening right now.  

           MS. CANTRALL:  May I answer that?   

           It may not be a crisis to you, but the thing is

we are still paying on our electric bills, as are all

Californians.  If you can't even rent a motel when I'm

traveling on County business anywhere in this wonderful


state, including the neighboring state of Nevada, there is

now a surcharge for electricity, and in some places water. 

You may not think the crisis is there, I will agree with

you, but the point is we are going to continue to pay until

the day comes when we can say we have water; we have

electricity.  And that goes mainly for Southern California

because, yes, by God, we do have water and I intend to hang

on to it.  Either that or send it off in one squirt and let

it flood the government.    

           Anyway, I could argue that point.  Yeah, we may

not be in a crisis, but you and I are going to continue to

pay for the next eight years.  Whether it goes or not. 

           MR. WEISER:  Whether this project is actually a

feasible solution to this advanced electrical crisis in the

future is something that we are all here to discuss. 

           MS. CANTRALL:  The population of the United

States is also projected to double by the year 2050.  So

there is going to be shortage of electricity.  Thank you. 

           (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 

           MS. O'BRIEN:  Okay, so we will get back to the

meetings.  I just want to again to emphasize that the

purpose of this meeting today is to ‑‑ we are soliciting

comments on this proposed hydropower project and additional

issues that you may have, or if you have additional sources

of information for us to help us evaluate this project.   


           I believe there's a question for Miss Cantrall.  

           MR. BROOKE:  Richard Brooke, B‑r‑o‑o‑k‑e.   

           You said that you feel you are representing the

majority. 

           MS. CANTRALL:  No, I said if it should come down

to a vote, one would have to side with the majority.  That

was clarification.  Right now we are not representing

everybody.  We are trying to get all the facts. 

           A SPECTATOR:  Do you believe that the majority of

people would like to have this project here? 

           MS. CANTRALL:  Within the district would like to

have the project as it stands now.  I can't say that will be

after all the facts are in.  A lot of people might change

their mind.  So I can't say that.   

           But I realize that a lot of you on the river are

against it.  People above you are for it.  South Fork is for

it. 

           A SPECTATOR:  Our fathers are for it. 

           MS. CANTRALL:  Rodney is who I'm speaking of. 

I'm not saying everybody up there.  He is.  And one other ‑‑

you have any other questions, Dick?   

           All right, the one other thing for notification

to Mr. and Mrs. Bruzzone, since they brought up this

business.  I forgot to mention and I apologize, that once in

a while there is a meeting at the headquarters of Alturas


Ranches.  Those meetings are posted on the door of the

building, and they're posted at the Likely post office, and <